Not very confident. Most of the sources cited talk about The Black Parade as a whole (which typically does not constitute towards notability per WP:NSONG) and probably don't constitute as WP:SIGCOV anyways. The other sources are also very surface level in coverage, and this is coming from someone that thinks song rankings can prove notability as long as they have things to say... which I don't think any of these really do, unfortunately. λNegativeMP114:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tough question but I think it narrows down to three options: "Drowning Lessons", "Vampire Money", and "Disenchanted". I know there's coverage regarding Drowning Lessons for it's alleged role in the Demolition Lovers storyline and also the fact that every time the band performed it live something went wrong. But with that being said, it is also more or less coverage about "Demolition Lovers" (as in, if a Drowning Lessons page was made, the two would probably share a good amount of sourcing or information). Disenchanted had an article at one point but I took it back to my userspace as a draft (here). I'm being extra cautious about WP:NSONG with it because, even if I think it just barely meets WP:GNG, it's better to have it secured by meeting NSONG through something like a gold certification if GNG is as flimsy as it is. Vampire Money most likely meets GNG but making a reasonably detailed, focused article on it could be tough.
If you want to make any of the above into articles, let me know and I'll probably help you out since I've thought about making a Vampire Money page for a while now, I already have a complete article for Disenchanted in userspace (it'd be a matter of just copy-paste or requesting a technical move), and a Drowning Lessons article existing would mean it'd have to be GA for the Bulletsgood topic to remain. And if there's any other songs you want to ask about I'll give my two cents on it as well, I've done research on almost every MCR song. λNegativeMP117:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remember when I was writing The Black Parade#Songs I struggled to actually find coverage regarding what exactly TIHID meant. I still kinda had to stretch what sourcing I could find to get what I wrote about the song there to begin with. So my initial impression is probably the same as Vampire Money at best: maybe just barely notable (probably not, but benefit of the doubt here), but a reasonably detailed article on it would be very, very hard. Granted, that section isn't my best work though and I'm probably re-doing it at a later date. Maybe there's detailed coverage about the song somewhere out there. λNegativeMP121:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nirvana isn't a band I've looked into research-wise. Like, at all, really. I don't think I could give you an answer regarding either of those drafts, sorry. λNegativeMP120:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just MCR, really. I've done some minor research into Green Day and Metallica as well, but I have largely retreated from working on the former and I don't have access to 80% of the sourcing on the latter's songs. Therefore, I can't really make judgements on which ones are the most notable by either. λNegativeMP121:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm aware. But just because something got certified gold doesn't necessarily mean it automatically warrants an article.
I also noticed that you just made This Is How I Disappear based off of the gold certification. I'll give more detailed comments regarding it tomorrow when I'm more available but I'm still kind of on the fence regarding if a reasonably detailed article can even be made on the song. λNegativeMP104:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, @Leafy46: was working on rewriting that article or planning to do so at some point, and I'm not really interested in working on that article anyways. λNegativeMP120:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. I'm taking a short break from MCR articles due to burnout, but I plan to fix up that article around July or so! Leafy46 (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was personally planning on taking on "Famous Last Words" eventually. But I must admit I am also feeling slight burnout from rewriting MCR articles. I'll get to it eventually though my main priority for when I get back into the swing of things is either going to be The Foundations of Decay at FAC or rewriting Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge. λNegativeMP120:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FLW is also the last one for the topic which would need a major overhaul (after "Sing", ofc), so I may put that one together if I get to that point before you're all ready. Leafy46 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @NegativeMP1, thanks for reviewing my GAN for Miiverse, I'm more than happy to look over your feedback and ensure the article is good for renomination soon. One thing I wanted to know is how many primary sources you saw when you edited the article, as I'm sure that the only sources that could be considered "primary" were the Iwata Asks interviews. I edit mostly in another topic area so I'm not familiar with the framework set by WP:Video games, but let me know what else I can change besides your immediate feedback and I'll try to get on it as soon as possible. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other primary sources I noticed were ones like the americas-support.nintendo.com site and anything cited from miiverse.nintendo.net. Most of these primary sources, as I initially stated, are likely fine as they mainly source development info or updates - it could just be interpreted as a bit too much. λNegativeMP100:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NegativeMP1 Just made most of the changes that were recommended from the review. I didn't touch the source formatting or the issue of WP:PROSELINE for the "Updates" section, but hopefully everything else looks good. Would love for you to review when you get the chance! Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 1,055 round points, mostly from television station articles, including 27 good articles and 9 good topic articles
Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 4 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 9 featured-topic articles, 149 good articles, 27 good-topic articles, and more than 90 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 18 In the News articles, and they have conducted more than 200 reviews.
Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, never listened to the Kinks or did much research on them. Do you think it'd be better to cover them all in one article or across three? λNegativeMP104:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, since you seem to be an expert on the notability of MCR songs, thought I'd ask if "Kill All Your Friends" is notable, since it charted in the U.K., but it was the b-side of "Famous Last Words", so i'm not sure. What do you think? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh... maybe...? Notable B-sides aren't exactly an unheard of concept (e.g. I'm in Love with My Car) and I do know the song has garnered some retrospective praise as an underrated song (and also minor mentions about how Gerard Way wished it was part of The Black Parade), but I don't think it'd be enough to create a substantial, well detailed article. λNegativeMP120:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, instead of counting the number of sources which exist, it'd be better to consider whether the content within them "warrant[s] a reasonably detailed article" per WP:NSONG. I see a few trinkets of information in here: Way saying that KAYF should have been on the album, that it is an "anthemic midtempo track", that it evokes "Where Is My Mind?", that Bryar did a good job drumming, and that it started being played live in 2007. These, to me, don't seem like enough to put together a full article; it would barely have a Composition section and Release section, even if its Reception section may be able to be padded by some rankings. There is definitely some potential though, and I think that if there were one more source which talks about this song outside the sole context of it being a Black Parade B-side, that something marginally larger than a WP:PERMASTUB could be put together. Leafy46 (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's pretty much how I'm viewing it right now. Very shallow coverage, though maybe something to keep an eye on. λNegativeMP117:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the revert of my edit of the article Roblox. No, really! I have been looking for a solution to the NPOV displayed in the section labeled "Criticism" of the article United States Department of Homeland Security. What can be done with that section of the article as I believe that it violates NPOV in several cases, much like my edit of the Roblox article. I would be interested in your thoughts. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very interesting specific situation that I'm not sure how well NPOV or the CSECTION essay would apply to. With Roblox, it's easier to generalize the information there into a couple of topic paragraphs as they aren't defining elements of the whole platform. However, a government agency is... well, a government agency, and those are almost always criticized. And while I am not an expert in this area of Wikipedia at all (government and political articles), my initial thoughts is that some sort of Criticism section could be justified here - just with less weight given towards less significant controversies (e.g. non-persistent issues that only a couple of sources exist on).
Giving the major criticisms their own sub-section if absolutely necessary, while the less significant or important ones either get grouped into them or end up in one place called "Other controversies" or something similar, would seem like a way to go. For example, I'm almost certain that the ACLU lawsuit section could be grouped into the ICE section of Surveillance. But this is just a hypothetical solution to try and improve the neutrality of the article even slightly. Generally, I don't view the existence of controversy/criticism sections in a good light, as I think that they naturally draw attention to problems related to a problem and violate the NPOV policy. But it could also equally violate NPOV to try and bury those issues if they're extremely apparent and impossible to not bring up when discussing the subject... so this is probably a case where a criticism section is warranted. But you might be better off getting advice from other editors more familiar with that side of Wikipedia since I have never edited any government-related article and don't engage in the topic area - and consequentially, I don't know their standards. λNegativeMP120:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply and suggestions. I will try to seek advice from a couple of editors that may be interested in Homeland Security issues. Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another question about an MCR song's notability
Is "Our Lady of Sorrow" or "Cubicles" more notable? I'm asking because both of their demos appeared on May Death Never Stop You, so I'm asking you which one is more notable because you said you'e done research on almost every MCR song. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
100% "Our Lady of Sorrows". I'm not sure if either are particularly notable enough for articles, but there is barely any sort of information regarding Cubicles. When I was rewriting I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love, it was the only song that I couldn't find any sort of information regarding. Hence why in the Songs section, all it says about the song is that it is the tenth in the album. I'm not sure if Sorrows could get an article either but at least reliable sources had something to say about it. λNegativeMP122:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A question about a Metallica song's notability
Do you think "Holier than Thou" by Metallica is notable? I don't own Benoît Clerc's Metallica All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track or Ben Apatoff's Metallica: The $24.95 Book, so I don't know what either of those books say about "Holier than Thou". Newtatoryd222 (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the question about "Holier than Thou", I'm not exactly sure. I always assumed it may have potential given that it's a semi-popular song from one of the most popular albums of all time, but I never really did much of a check. It is covered in both the $24.95 book and All the Songs, though the former only discusses it as an example of the religious imagery present throughout the Black Album.
That's a really tough call. I plan on making an article for "All Within My Hands" soon, but I don't necessarily think it's the most notable Metallica song that doesn't have an article. There's many other songs that probably also meet GNG. Inamorata (Metallica song) was kept at AFD for having coverage in books talking about every Metallica song and some minor online commentary and reaction content - which who knows however many other Metallica songs have the same level of coverage as, if not more. I'm not trying to make a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument here or anything, though. Just saying that there's a lot of potential. λNegativeMP101:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and did the work on it that I could. Weirdly enough, the coverage regarding actual reception regarding it wasn't as plentiful as I recall it being. But it's probably fine, only a minor setback. Might nominate it for GA later on but for now I'll let it sit. λNegativeMP118:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Metallica
Hey there. I was wondering if you possibly wanted to collaborate on bringing the rest of Metallica's studio albums to at least GA for a possible good topic? Their first four are already FAs, I just finished Load and Reload, and St. Anger is already a GA so that just leaves the Black album, Death Magnetic, Hardwired and 72 Seasons (although between you and me I'm already considering rewriting St. Anger since it became a GA in 2009 and it's a little rough). If not it's no biggie, I just saw you already have a few sandbox pages started so I just wondered. Thanks, – zmbro(talk) (cont)15:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be down. I've technically got a 72 Seasons draft here (not much rewrite progress though), and I've thought about Hardwired before. So at the very least I could give those two a whirl. I also don't think they'd have to rely on that much print sourcing, especially 72 Seasons, so they should be pretty easy to do. As for the other two, I haven't thought much about Death Magnetic (though I could probably help out), and the Black album would be such a massive undertaking that I'm not sure is even within my capabilities.
On the topic of the already promoted albums, I've also thought for a while that all of the first four albums probably need some sort of comb-through to fix them up. They're all older FAs (2014-2015), and all have some sort of unsourced content, and that will probably get brought up at a GTC. I've also, for some reasons I can't exactly pinpoint, never really liked the article from Kill 'Em. Something about it just feels off. And I think Master of Puppets needs a better legacy section. Ride the Lightning and Justice are probably fine, minor sourcing issues aside. λNegativeMP116:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the Black Album would certainly be a big project, but it's not like it's in really poor shape currently. The three most recent albums would certainly not be that big of a task, especially with Clerc's book. Wall and Brannigan's books can help with Anger and DM. But you're also right that the older albums will likely need some updates. Still, I think it's a doable project and I'm certainly down if you are! Although I did just remember, would this good topic include the one project fans never acknowledge.? – zmbro(talk) (cont)16:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm definitely down to do it! As for the hellspawn Lulu, I don't think it'd count? Technically, it's not a Metallica studio album, but a collaborative project. If the topic is simply titled "Metallica studio albums", then it would fall out of scope. And if we for whatever reason chose to expand the scope to beyond the studio albums, then we'd arguably also have to include S&M + 2, and maybe even Garage, Inc.. λNegativeMP116:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sticking to the core studio albums would probably be best. Although Garage Inc. is in horrible shape so I may end up doing that anyways. I still have to finish rewriting Bowie's Blackstar though... – zmbro(talk) (cont)16:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there's some other stuff I want to do first as well, especially with song articles (you have probably noticed that I'm mostly focused on Metallica song articles rather than the albums). But I'm definitely putting HTSD and 72S on my to-do list. λNegativeMP117:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give an update, I still plan on doing HTSD and 72S. They're both on my list. But there's a lot of other things on my list. For instance, there's part of an article rewrite I still need to do so that a separate good topic related to My Chemical Romance can be completed. In-fact, there's a lot of other things I feel obligated to do in the MCR subject area and it's starting to turn into burn-out, hence my slow-down on full article rewrites in general. I've lately found it more relaxed to slowly chip away at things rather than to blast through them. That applies to most subjects. But I still plan on rewriting both albums within the next couple of months (or at least starting them). λNegativeMP123:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give more detailed feedback tomorrow but my initial thoughts are kind of... meh? My concerns regarding a complete article on the song being possible kind of exist. As I said in an above comment that I posted at the exact same time you left this new message. λNegativeMP104:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I didn't use Not The Life It Seems is because it isn’t mentioned in the book at all, in case you’re wondering, I checked. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newtatoryd222: For what it's worth, I have a similar yet different perspective to NegativeMP1 here. The coverage of the song seems very shallow as is, even if its new certification potentially makes it marginally notable; the fact that it is not mentioned in Not the Life It Seems (which is the foremost MCR-related source used in these articles) doesn't really help its case. As such, I can't really support the creation of what is effectively a WP:PERMASTUB which would be difficult to grow into a longer, finished article, and would advocate for its re-redirection to the album page. Simply put, not every song needs a Wikipedia article, and the point of an album page is to consolidate this information. Leafy46 (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with this. I, admittedly, am more focused on trying to update Long Live The Black Parade Tour and the pages for the songs that have been played during it so far, so I haven't done a super in depth look yet, but from what I am seeing of TIHID's article right now, I'm leaning towards having it just... not needing to exist at all. Again, based on initial impressions and the source searching for it that I did in the past. There's things to say about the singles, Dead!, Cancer, Mama, hell even Disenchanted (which I just recently restored, FYI, because at least that one has enough info). But TIHID...? My initial comment probably still applies regarding it: "I remember when I was writing The Black Parade#Songs I struggled to actually find coverage regarding what exactly TIHID meant. I still kinda had to stretch what sourcing I could find to get what I wrote about the song there to begin with. So my initial impression is probably the same as Vampire Money at best: maybe just barely notable (probably not, but benefit of the doubt here), but a reasonably detailed article on it would be very, very hard". So... ehhhh... I'm leaning towards just redirecting it back into the album, sorry. λNegativeMP118:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now is also probably a time to reiterate that I personally believe WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV almost always come before any sort of WP:SNG, including WP:NSONG. This is also kind-of part of policy as well (Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia - the GNG page). Is TIHID maybe barely notable per NSONG? Maybe. But is there anything to really say about it in a coherent form? Questionable. λNegativeMP118:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think "Blood" Is notable? The inspiration behind the song is mentioned in Not the Life it Seems, and it has a music video, even though its believed to be one of the worst songs on the album. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Demolition Lovers has an article because of the coverage regarding how it is used as a whole concept that is the lifeblood of two whole albums. Or at least, the storyline. Although I will admit it's definitely on the weaker side of notability (as in, barely crosses the line even if coverage regarding it is fairly detailed) and I mainly made it because I feared that, when the Bullets topic was being worked on, someone at the nomination page would request a Demolition Lovers article given the level of coverage it has in the album article. Blood is not and I'll go out on a limb and say there's practically no shot it's notable, even if some minor information regarding it out there exists. Maybe if the Long Live rendition of the song (they literally changed the entire song for the tour) gets coverage. But I doubt it.
Also, I've WP:BLAR-ed This Is How I Disappear, because of the notability concerns and whether or not a reasonably detailed article on the subject is possible. It appears that all three of us seem to come to an agreement on that (or at least understanding). I can also take it to AFD if necessary for a broader consensus, but considering that us three are the only editors that actively even edit or maintain MCR song articles, I'm not sure if a broader consensus would necessarily get the full picture (for the record, this isn't an attempt at stonewalling). λNegativeMP104:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, in the sea of the other comments regarding songs, I missed this one and just now noticed. Sorry.
Uhhh... I'm not sure. I'm currently (slowly, but surely) working on a topic for Three Cheers, and compared to the amount of song articles The Black Parade and even Bullets have, I feel like there's something missing. And Cemetery Drive is the second most popular non-single from Three Cheers. I'd have to keep going through Three Cheers-related material to make my judgement call on if Cemetery Drive is notable or not as my opinions right now are purely gut feelings. I will keep you updated on if I find anything, but don't be surprised if nothing ever comes up. λNegativeMP122:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Review our Wikipedia Page
Our initial submission in December 2024 was declined due to notability concerns. Since then, we have incorporated additional sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. Furthermore, our organization has expanded internationally, and our developments have been covered by multiple media outlets—including official coverage from the Government of Bahrain.
I did not reject the draft based on entirely on notability concerns (although it still seems flimsy). Rather, I rejected it because the draft is an advertisement with highly editorialized language, and Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. λNegativeMP116:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! Sorry to ask a favor for you here, but I've just finished my re-write for this page and can't help but feel like something is... off about it? Like I'm missing something glaring, but I can't seem to put my finger on the issue. If you have time, could you give it a quick skim as a second pair of eyes, before I send the page off to GAN? Thanks :) Leafy46 (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing seems particularly off about it I don't think. I mean, it kind-of surprises me is how the most successful single off of the album doesn't have enough available material to warrant a separate composition section. But that's it and it's not really a critique of the page itself. λNegativeMP122:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did check quite hard, but there were surprisingly few articles about the song's release (whether originally or as a music video), and the song was mentioned very infrequently in album reviews for some reason. If you don't see any issues with the page, though, I'll send it off to GAN. Thanks for the look :) Leafy46 (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Conventional Weapons Number One cover.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Conventional Weapons Number One cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hey again @NegativeMP1, hope you're doing well. I wanted to send a second talk page message about the GAN for Miiverse as I queried next steps on the Discussion page [1] and was suggested to reach out to you. If you'd be willing to do another review and make sure all the major issues have been resolved, I'd greatly appreciate it! Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably not going to review it for GAN again, but there have definitely been improvements. I remain slightly concerned regarding WP:PROSELINE in the updates section though. I really don't see how that section doesn't fall under that. λNegativeMP122:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Is the Updates section the only thing in the article that needs fixing? If so, I think I can work out a resolution to that. Instead of listing every update in chronological order by date, I could dedicate that section to describing minor updates that have happened over time (as if to say "Nintendo made frequently minor updates to the platform which included changes such as..."), with dates only being dedicated to the major updates that occurred on the platform. I think this is a feasible solution and it would cut down on article length a bit too, but let me know what you think. Surayeproject3 (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again @NegativeMP1, just went ahead and changed the Updates section. Feel free to take a look at it if you wish, I made it shorter and more concise while keeping most of the sources. If there are no objections, I think it should be good to renominate, no? Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late-ish reply. I think that the article seems a lot more concise, yes. Probably good to renominate at this point. I don't see any drastic issues.
Also, off topic, but I like the dedication that you have towards wanting to get the article through GAN despite an earlier failure. λNegativeMP105:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words! And sounds good, I'll go ahead and renominate the article with a note stating you looked over the contents to make sure it met the threshold. Hopefully all goes well! Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you didn't, what I did was simply go to my userspace, and with the URL, I added "/[draft name". So, for Helena, I just added "/Helena" to the end, resulting in User:NegativeMP1/Helena. Just replace the 'Helena' with whatever you want a draft on. λNegativeMP105:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Green Day trilogy albums are an... interesting series, to say the least. I never really had much interest in them though. I probably won't be helping with the article. λNegativeMP101:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't, it's a scrapped song from The Paper Kingdom that they chose to perform live. I redirected War Beneath The Rain to it accordingly. I do find it interesting that they're playing songs from it again though, as they clearly said that the rest of the project may not see the light of day for being "unsalvageable". λNegativeMP116:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've pondered on this for a while and, while I lean towards it being notable, both me and Leafy are concerned about if there's enough information on it to bring it to completion. I plan to draft something on it in User:NegativeMP1/Draft stack and see if I can come up with anything eventually. But I'm not sure how it'll go. It's very iffy. λNegativeMP115:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Gulch Editing
Are you involved in the Halo development community? Please do not alter or remove content from the Blood Gulch page without proper justification.
I don’t know who you are, but Derrick Moore is a respected former Microsoft employee. If you’d like, we can set up a call—I can provide documentation on him, or you can speak with him directly.
You do not have the authority to tell me what I can or cannot edit, so don't act like you do. Anyways, you are adding unsourced material to a page, and per Verifiability guidelines, I 100% have a justification to remove the content. I even told you that justification several times. You attempting to frame it as me not being knowledgeable enough about the subject is not a proper reasoning to continue adding unsourced content. You have to cite a reliable, secondary source for your claims, and also make the writing less editorialized - which is another reason behind the revert: it was not encyclopedic. And if you have the ability to cite or show me your evidence, why not just cite those sources (assuming they're reliable) instead of continuing to add it without the sources and act like you have ownership over the article? There is no need to get on a call with you or speak with Moore directly. But there is a need to provide a source, per Wikipedia's policy which cannot be negotiated.
Also, to clarify, I do not deny whether or not he made the map - but the fact he did is unsourced. You could probably get away with citing the game directly or some other primary sources for only the fact Moore made the map, but not any of the other claims you have made in the article text. Either way, a source is still required, and right now, you won't provide any. λNegativeMP114:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"And you have any authority at all?, grow up." Not what I said, and also no personal attacks.
Regarding the sources, I've already cited the reliable sources policy several times, and that contains information on what sources could be deemed acceptable. The video games Wikiproject, in particular, also hosts a list of sources at WP:VG/S that have been previously discussed and found to be reliable. Search for information within those. And again, for the basic claim that Moore made the map, a citation to the games credits is probably fine. But not for the rest of it. λNegativeMP115:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're fiesty aren't you?, no personal attacks but proceeds to tell me "grow up".
Hello Again! Baldi has a chance of getting B/GA nomnation?
Hello! As I saw with the article there was a lot of progress been done with with the article. Now the question is: Do Baldi's basics has achance to get a higher class than C, or B? Or That's what it is, that will stay?
The article needs to take into account the opinions of video game critics, not just it's cultural impact. Until then, it is fundamentally incomplete. C-Class is appropriate for now. λNegativeMP104:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So baldi's progress continues and the opinions of video game critics are already done (mostly). Here's my and overall question: Now what?? SI Moon Grubisz440 (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh I'm confused
Why did you remove the Schlep incident? I get what you mean by undue weight, but I feel like this topic should be added upon. I could at least make it two sentences only? TheSwagger13 (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to go into detail on specific controversies related to Roblox's content moderation, and that's not exclusive to the Schlep incident. There are many cases like him (not exactly like his, but similar). I simply don't think its due weight when criticism towards Roblox content moderation is addressed in the article already. Trying to keep the article somewhat neutral and broad and all. Also, for what its worth, I recently added the text "In response to perceived moderation issues, there have been instances where players have formed teams to expose or mass report predatory content and users on the platform." to the Reception section, which is cited to sources related to Schlep. So the situation is represented anyways. The bit could possibly be extended a tad bit to mention Roblox's responses to these groups... but I'd be extremely careful and generally advise against it to try and keep neutrality.
Now, what would definitely be fair is covering the legal issue related to Schlep at Roblox Corporation. I don't know how much detail should be given towards the situation there, but that feels more appropriate given it's the corporation suing Schlep, and the article for the platform is better off covering the moderation issues broadly. In my opinion, at least. λNegativeMP116:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could be the first to win the Bilorv challenge "Showcase"
I was skimming through your dungeon (thanks again for letting me take the Rythm draft) and I saw that at one point you started making articles for the Halo TV series. Considering that you make the main article for the series, you could be the first to earn Showcase. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made an article for the series premiere and very quickly after lost interest in wanting to edit about the Halo TV series. I also forgot most of the plot. I still could make the articles and just base the plot summaries after those posted elsewhere online, but the quality of the articles would not be up to my own personal standards. I like to prioritize quality over quantity. λNegativeMP121:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would classify all of it as trivial information that isn't relevant to the games history, or an encyclopedic overview of it. It seems like something that a YouTube video would talk about (because I know that exact YouTube video) rather than something actually relevant. At best, a sentence could be placed somewhere about how some people made pirated versions of the game that are playable in a web browser without naming any specific examples, but I don't even think that should be in the article and I don't think there is anywhere for it to go without seeming even more like trivia. It should not be in the article. λNegativeMP101:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably nominate it before too long. I'm just letting it sit to see if I can find anything else or if I catch things that need to be copyedited, rather than rushing through it. λNegativeMP117:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Frontlines Gameplay (Roblox).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The fourth round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 29 August. The penultimate round saw three contestants score more than 800 points:
BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,175 round points, mainly from sports-related articles, including 17 good articles, 27 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 854 round points, mostly from a high-scoring featured article on the Indian leader Rani of Jhansi and two good articles, in addition to 13 featured and good article reviews
Everyone who competed in Round 4 will advance to Round 5 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for Round 4 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 9 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 98 good articles, 9 good topic articles, more than 150 reviews, nearly 100 did you know articles, and 18 in the news articles.
In advance of the fifth and final round, the judges would like to thank every contestant for their hard work. As a reminder, any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed in Round 5. In addition, note that Round 5 will end on 31 October at 23:59 UTC. Awards at the end of Round 5 will be distributed based on who has the most tournament points over all five rounds, and special awards will be distributed based on high performance in particular areas of content creation (e.g., most featured articles in a single round).
Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges – Cwmhiraeth (talk·contribs), Epicgenius (talk·contribs), Frostly (talk·contribs), Guerillero (talk·contribs) and Lee Vilenski (talk·contribs) – are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck!
I'll consider it, though I'm concerned that I won't be able to properly assess source-text integrity with how many Chinese sources the pages use in comparison to the Genshin articles I worked on in the past. Not that using Chinese sourcing is a bad thing, because it isn't, I'm just not sure if I can properly assess so many sources. λNegativeMP120:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean from a translation standpoint. I don't speak Chinese, so I'd be relying on translation software. For a couple of sources I think it's fine as long as no quotations or opinions are being drawn, but the more Chinese sources there are, the more concerned I'd become.
Also as an FYI, in-case you're still looking to make more Genshin articles, I put together sources for Xiao and Arlecchino a while back here to establish notability but never got around to researching more of before I lost interest in Genshin. I still think they both have shots, but only if there's more out there than the sources I already provided, considering I thought Venti was already notable yet got AfD'd. The sources there are only to do the bare minimum at establishing notability. Just passing on what I managed to put together at the time. I wish you luck with your Genshin-related article creations. λNegativeMP118:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Looks like I'm having trouble determining whether a video game source demonstrates notability or SIGCOV despite reading WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. I'm concerned my AfD record may take a hit because of this - any help? Gommeh📖/🎮21:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I would personally regard as contributing towards notability or SIGCOV is definitely on a case by case basis. I actually am very lenient to what constitutes as SIGCOV. But what I don't think constitutes as SIGCOV is things like basic announcements, or coverage that doesn't really offer things to say about the subject. If a source is routine coverage or an announcement, then it's hardly secondary coverage at all unless it offers an interpretation or more details beyond the absolute basics. Plot summary sources also fall under this. This is why I think enough critical reception or analysis is the ultimate deciding factor for video game region/character notability (and also whether or not a detailed article can be made). Also, as an FYI, I am actually very lenient on what can be considered SIGCOV. As long as it offers decent commentary about the subject, I'm willing to consider one or two paragraphs as SIGCOV. λNegativeMP102:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of Roblox games: Tower Defense Simulator
Hello Negavie! Could I ask: What Makes Tower Defense Simulator not noteworthy but makes, for example, Flee The Facility noteworthy? Tower Defense Simulator has had a player count peak of 11.000 in the last 24h (Flee the Facility had 16.000) while winning a Roblox award and being nomiated for two more and having a much more active online presence, also sharing a pretty stable playerbase historically of 10.000 YZiv (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if Tower Defense Simulator should be brought back or if I am just comparing with a bad example and Flee the Facility should also be taken down
If the issue was a lack of sources then there are plenty of sources avalable online, I will redo the edit with more.
@YZiv: What determines a game's eligibility for the list is whether or not multiple reliable, secondary sources have discussed the game in detail. Or, more formally, significant coverage. Roblox player counts do not mean anything regarding notability on the list. The page criteria is included on the talk page, as well as an alert when editing the page. λNegativeMP119:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kaiserrech
Just wanted to ask, why can i not cite the official kaiserreich wiki kept up by the mod devs? If i cant use the official wiki for the lore where else would i site the lore? especially the updated thing since the articles used in the original edition are from 2019, either way they had to be updated
Also i personally do believe that my edits weren't "non constructive" especially with the austrai-hungary section, the article literally says they consolidate into one government when in reality they federalized under the rule of otto (as stated by the wiki)
"After the renegotiations of the Ausgleich in 1927, the empire was reorganized into five constituent members (two primary and three secondary):
Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria (under the control of the Austrian Crown)" And I think that kaisercat cinema deserve their own section on the article seen as how they're a seperate entity from the mod devs and creators Plus theres nothing "non constructive" about just cleaning up phrasing and making the writing alot smoother and seem less clunky Im sorry if i seem upset, while i am slightly, im not to a crazy amount. Mainly that you completely reverted all of the changes and didn't even keep any of the updates i made, plus i was kinda caught off guard lol
Unfortunately, not being able to cite things like the Kaiserreich Wiki is Wikipedia policy. We have multiple sourcing guidelines, although the main ones relevant here are WP:RS and WP:UGC. The Kaiserreich Wiki falls under UGC, meaning it cannot be cited. We don't allow the citing of any wiki, actually. Not even other Wikipedia articles. And if the devs run the Wiki, then the concern of too much WP:PRIMARY sourcing comes into play. Generally, if something is not reported by reliable, secondary sources, and is not essential to filling in jarring coverage gaps or providing basic background information, then its inclusion on Wikipedia is questionable. For the case of the Kaisercat Cinema, that's barely mentioned in sources to begin with, so the weight given to it right now is all that is due.
As for the accuracy of the lore, originally it came down to how it was in the sources. But since then, I believe a number of editors have edited it and I also recall a talk page complaint about a maps accuracy. So I'm not sure what is or is not accurate, or if it even follows the sources at this point. From my own knowledge of things, the Kaiserreich lore is not fully established and concrete on its own and a lot of it is speculated from clues or external media or updates. I also think that for something like this which is so reliant on external media it falls under plot sourcing guidelines. Hence why the sources are used in the first place and required. If the lore is outdated, then so be it. Policy is policy, and no justification can overrule it here. λNegativeMP103:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhh that makes complete sense, sorry if i came off as accusitory or rude! I was trying my best to like defend my edits but still sound genuine. Thank you for clearing it up for me tho! Inkchan (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}